Just Al writes, “Instead, there’s the simple factor that extraordinary claims require, and in fact demand, extraordinary evidence.” to which angrydwarf responds, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Word games are fun, but they aren’t science.” to which Just Al replies, “Actually, that’s pretty much the definition of science.” Funny that you would find those positions incompatible, they are both paraphrased from Carl Sagan.

Just Al, you state, “Your bias against ’scientists’, whatever you imagine them to be, demonstrates a poor understanding of the whole process, and your willingness to argue against something nobody even mentioned, such as Fermi’s Paradox, shows you’re not bothering to read and comprehend the other posts. If you had, you would have noticed that not one person scoffed at the idea of extraterrestrial intelligence. They merely find the claims that Greer is advancing to be ludicrous.” I think you are the one who needs to work on his reading comprehension. The attitude of the majority of posts, including yours, is ridicule. If you defend your position with ridicule, how can you be taken seriously? That Fermi’s paradox is brought up in a topic like this is inevitable; “Where’s the evidence?” is the battle cry of the debunker, which is no more convincing that the batherings of a UFO cultist. Fermi’s paradox is how smart people attempt to deflate the very notion of aliens. Many “scientists” feel that if they can quote Fermi, that makes them smart like Fermi, not unlike the methodology employed by other cannibalistic faiths. Note that when I write the word scientist in quotes, it is a distinctly different animal I am refering to than that of a true scientist.

Just Al asks, “Are you totally unaware of the peer review process of publication, the part that requires anyone advancing a theory to present it to others of similar background specifically to test it?” and “… would you show me the specific circumstances of dogma in the scientific world where a new theory, of any kind, is taken on faith?” The problem is not so much new theories being taken on faith, it is old theories that refuse to die because of the blind belief and faith in our scientific forebears. When a scientist sees that 99% of his peers believe something, he’s very likely to believe it too, without a single critical thought. That’s where peer review goes out the window. Do you think Galileo Galilei benefited from peer review? No, the great minds of his time had him branded a heretic and a criminal and buried him in chains. That’s what happens when great egos are confronted with a version of reality that doesn’t match their own — they attack. This is what I mean when I say that dogma has no place in science. That’s how a great mind like Tycho Brahe can have the his own extensive observational evidence staring him right in the face and still reach the wrong conclusion because of his preconceived notions of geocentrism. It took his more open-minded assistant Johannes Kepler to see what the evidence was really saying. Even at his own assistant’s urging, with plenty of mathematical and observational data to back him up, Brahe would not change his world view because of his faith in the astronomers / astrologers / alchemists that preceeded him. You see, observational evidence isn’t everything, you also need some imagination.

Einstein, who said imagination is the most important tool a scientist has, and is considered one of the greatest minds in recorded history, developed his theory of relativity based on a conjecture that had infinitesimal observational evidence: the speed of light is constant. Some of his predictions are mindblowing compared to the science of the day — mindblowing even today. Naturally, such an altered view of reality took decades before it was accepted. All he had was a theory, much of which was later supported by tests, which is good science, but not proof. Some of it still can’t be tested almost 100 years later. Yet, today, almost every scientific mind accepts it. Someday, relativity will be widely seen as failing, just as Newton’s “laws”, as practical as they may be, fail to completely model physics. Just as compounds gave way to atoms — which gave way to sub-atomic particles which will eventually give way to something else, maybe strings — the current paradigm will give way to a new reality. How many scientist embrace string theory today versus twenty years ago? How many will embrace it twenty years into the future? How much of string theory is based on observational evidence versus mathematical musings? What about cosmology, something that can’t really be observed at all — is it not science because of a shortage of data and the impossibility of observing the “main event”? A lot of scientists accepted the big bang theory after a few decades of its introduction until it was almost universally believed. Now the big bang doesn’t look like the answer. Should it matter that 99% of scientists still believe it? Or that 99% of scientists didn’t believe it at first? I don’t see how it could not matter. Science has had many obstacles through out the ages, dogma (or if you prefer, “accepted reality”) is hardly the least of them. I don’t see how this era is any different.

Does anyone else have any recollection of this? I’m guessing I read the article about 30 years ago.

http://www.mufon-ces.org/docs/outsidemagazine.pdf

See the novel Footfall by Niven and Pournelle.

Actually, that’s pretty much the definition of science. But to be more specific, if you’re not basing your ideas, postulations, or whatever you like to call it on evidence, then what ARE you basing them on? Guesswork? Wishful thinking? Did you arrive at your views on a pet subject because you found supportive and convincing evidence for them, or because you simply like a particular idea, and will accept anything at all that helps this along, regardless of how flimsy it might be?

You have made comments more than once now about “dogmatic science”, and I’m curious to know where this idea comes from. Are you totally unaware of the peer review process of publication, the part that requires anyone advancing a theory to present it to others of similar background specifically to test it? Have you missed out on the fact that the “fumbling imposters” you speak of are only going to be revealed through exactly this process? And finally, would you show me the specific circumstances of dogma in the scientific world where a new theory, of any kind, is taken on faith? Because it seems you and I have distinctly different reading matter.

I can go on – you provided numerous points that can be debated quite energetically. Instead, I’ll suggest that you do some more real research into your own views. Your bias against “scientists”, whatever you imagine them to be, demonstrates a poor understanding of the whole process, and your willingness to argue against something nobody even mentioned, such as Fermi’s Paradox, shows you’re not bothering to read and comprehend the other posts. If you had, you would have noticed that not one person scoffed at the idea of extraterrestrial intelligence. They merely find the claims that Greer is advancing to be ludicrous.

Just Al says, “Instead, there’s the simple factor that extraordinary claims require, and in fact demand, extraordinary evidence.” That’s a real chestnut you dusted off there. It’s almost as good as: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” Word games are fun, but they aren’t science.

Kaptain K, I wish you did live in my world, the world where “scientists” don’t make silly assumptions, such as, “If they are malevolent, all our weapons would be like BB guns against tanks.” Why would you assume that? Let’s keep it real, folks, there is no evidence that any alleged aliens are especially invulnerable. And again, “If they are benevolent, the only reason for secrecy would be so that the “self perceived elite” could enrich themselves at the expense of the “hoi polloi”” Says you — though you may be right, it does seem a reasonable motive for secrecy. But there could be any number of other reasons for secrecy including international or planetary blackmail, threat of national embarrassment, a genuine or imagined threat from “them”, a fear of super-technology getting into the hands of our enemies, or simply a lack of anything definitive to say regarding the unfolding of the biggest event in human history — or any of a million other possibilities I haven’t thought of. I’m not about to make declarative statements about the matter without facts, something many of you don’t bother with.

What I’m really saying is that an alarming number of highly vocal “know-it-all” scientists (and other leaders of popular thought) throughout history have been close-minded fumbling imposters regurgitating the work of the greater minds that came before them. Nothing short of a total scientific paradigm shift will ever allow a change in their world-view, because they think they are smarter and they think they have the knowlege, so they “know” they have the answers … when all they really have is mere postulation and nary an original thought. That’s what happens when speculative science turns into dogmatic faith. The blogger’s quote above is a perfect example of this: “I like reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way.” I can scarcely imagine a more close-minded attitude; to have it uttered by a scientist is abominable. Often people who spout out the Fermi paradox have already made up their minds, using the “lack of evidence” as the deciding factor. That’s not science. Science is about eliminating the impossible in an unending effort to find the truth, not qualifying reality to reinforce our preconceived notions.

And for those who actually think I have an opinion about Dr. Greer’s SETI claims, I don’t, but if I was forced to form one, I’d say that there has been no physical evidence presented; there is an extreme shortage of credible, verifiable testimony; and the claims are indeed extraordinary. Therefore, it is just conjecture built on rumor. My suspicion is that Mr. Greer’s enthusiasm may have gotten the better of him this time. However, I do place a small amount of goodwill in Dr. Greer’s corner because I am aware of his work and among the vast circle of UFO nuts, he may be the closest to the truth. I think anyone who invests the time to watch “The Disclosure Project” press conference, and the two hours of supplementary interviews that accompany it, would be lying if they didn’t feel a little swayed by the mountainous anecdotal evidence.